Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I have a problem with cover/tribute bands.
- Thread starter T-Forty
- Start date
- Status
Bad Originals. Bad covers can be quite entertaining. I know the songs so I can tell exactly where things go awry. With a bad originals band, I have no idea if bad was what the intention was in the first place as I have no point of reference.
I'd much rather see a kickass band of either variety though.
I've never stuck around to hear an hour of bad covers. And generally I'd bolt after two songs of bad originals, but I've been trapped a few times. Usually it's a bad local band who managed to get onto a bill opening for the bigger act that I actually want to see. Usually I try to give those bands a chance because I've been in their shoes and it's tough, especially being the first of three bands, but awful is awful.
Still, I'd say it's better to sit through a truly awful original band, simply because it makes for a funnier inside joke later.
Hmmm, I think I'm going to go with bad covers. I think knowing a song well, and hearing it butchered, it way more grating to the ears than just your run-of-the-mill terrible original band. Maybe there is always hope the original band could get better? Or there is something interesting/original/entertaining behind the missed changes and out of tune singing.
But hearing somebody ruin a great song (like "wayward Son"), is terrible!
But hearing somebody ruin a great song (like "wayward Son"), is terrible!
Uh, because people enjoying hearing them? Unlike most original songs.
I think, generally speaking, most people are not looking for new music. They may like it, or not, when exposed to it, normally outside of their own volition. But they're not seeking it out. They usually prefer what they already know and like. And why not? There's a vast universe of great songs which already exists to entertain them, why bother with the unknown?
It's kind of like going out to eat. Most people will usually go somewhere they've already been, and select something they've already had. It's human nature. Everyone will try something new occasionally, and some even seek out the unknown on a regular basis. But that's not the norm.
Having said that, new, GOOD songs are a great thing. And they will always be made, and always be accepted. But when people are going out to hear a small-time band, they will usually prefer cover music. Therefore, cover bands are much more than just worthwhile (the opposite of worthless). That worth has been proven many times over in this thread.
I'm not saying original bands are worthless, that would be ignorant and silly. But neither are cover bands.
That's very genre-dependent. If you're playing music that is fairly commercial in style (mainstream rock, punk, pop, R&B, etc) then yes, you're probably right. If you haven't made it by 25, you're probably not going to. But other, more fringe genres (eg, the less mainstream rock sub-genres, more traditional soul and country, jazz, blues, etc) are far more accepting of people who are a bit older, as the image part isn't so important and it's more about the music.
I've got another good question, brought up by ChrisB2, for the group. Do people think the erroding economy will be lead to a better/more gigs for cover bands (the logic being people will be out looking for entertainment as a distraction, and seeking the familiar/comforting aspects of cover bands), or better for original bands (the logic being people are spending more money in general on entertainment, and fewer job opportunities mean more people playing in bands)? I can't seem to decide.
T-40's are worthless. It is a well known fact that you can't take an old bass like that and do original music. That type of effort puts the planets in misalignment, interrupts the karma, and tries to put Ontario in Canada when everyone knows the real one is in California.
You are defeated from the git go. Give it up.
You need
That is some funny $%@*!
You're talking about musicianship. The OP stated that cover bands are worthless, because they aren't writing original music. It had nothing to do with musicianship.
You can be a good musician, and write and play lousy original music. Cover music gets played (well and poorly) because it's good and people like it. That's the point, cover bands are worthwhile because they play music people want to hear, among other worthwhile aspirations.
Being a successful band playing your own rock music requires a large devoted fan base and the only large demographic with enough time and obsessive energy to waste on following rock bands are young people.
It's a fact and it's ok.
It's a fact and it's ok.
Neither.
On the outset, there were several industries that didn't seem as hard hit by the downturn as others and bars/clubs were one. But that didn't last and now they are being hit as people cut back on luxuries like entertainment. Less profits for clubs and bars means they cut back as well. So less venues paying for musical acts. in that sense you could say it would be better for original bands since many of them are willing to play for free.
The other side of the coin is that those venues still paying for live music will get fiercer competition. And the bands that will consistently draw crowds (especially crowds that put more money in the till) will generally be cover bands.
But again, the short answer is that a bad economy is bad for both.
Again, "rock" is kinda a large genre to tar everything within it with the same brush. You'd be right when it comes to the more commercial rock styles, but, for instance, progressive rock has a large adult fanbase who actively seek out new music (my father-in-law has recently discovered Porcupine Tree and loves them, and he's 50). Same with new bands who play in more traditional rock styles - take Airbourne - they're all in their 30s/40s, but play original rock in a classic, AC/DC-esque style and they're getting huge among both the young'uns and the adults who like that musical style.
My opinion is it will benefit neither, but will hurt cover bands more, and original bands less or not at all.
I agree with BigO that typical bar bands will suffer as spending is reduced. But it strikes me (in my small, isolated opinion) that the spending habits of young people would be less affected by harder economic times, and since (again in my limited opinion) most original bands' support comes from young people, those bands would be less-negatively affected than cover bands.
That is, as long as we're talking about small-time bands. I'm not sure how this economy would affect big acts. They're probably more worried about the internet...
My point? That all original bands ASSUME they are "good", even when they are playing in front of nobody and getting paid peanuts.
Cover bands? We have a pretty good barometer if we are any good - BOOKINGS, CROWDS AND REACTIONS.
You will know very quickly whether you suck or not.
But you listen to some of the people here, and they have said almost PROUDLY that it doesn't matter to them if they have "success" or not - because they have (*PAUSE FOR TRUMPETS*) "INTEGRITY"!! LOL
so you slap some songs together and that's "integrity"? Setting the bar pretty low!
+28
Please, all the original and hybrid original/cover people; note that QORC said "some of the people here."
It takes more than any supposed integrity to get somewhere with an original band - it takes hard work, and, above all, good songs that people actually want to hear. If you get that, you get bookings, crowds and good reactions. Pretty much the same deal as a cover band, actually, but the original band has the added responsibility of writing tunes that listeners will enjoy as much as the stuff that's already out there. And that bit's hard. Good songwriting is an art that not many people are actually much good at. But you get better the more you do it.
Just writing your own stuff isn't enough - you have to be good, and you find out if you're good by putting your stuff out there and seeing if people like it. Integrity's fine, but you need quality too.
Can someone please PM me when a decision is based. I really want to know which is better -- cover bands or original bands -- but there's too much going on to keep track.
Also - if the measure of "good" is directly related to the amount of $$ made, the number of people in the audience or the number of minutes of air-play songs get, then I am really not all that interested in writing "good" songs.
I will agree 100% that it's very challenging to write a popular song. Popular (pop) songs that are popular with a pop-consuming crowd tend to be rather simplistic and contain all the most current cliches and other hackneyed devices currently deemed popular by the record companies who produce and promote them.
In spite of all that simplicity and the abundance of cliches to draw from, it's still a very hard thing to do to craft a song that will hit the charts.
"Popular" (with whom?) and "good" (to whom?) - if measured strictly by popular consumption - these are a pair of barometers that I feel are calibrated to measure only the most simplistic and superficial data with regard to the quality of music.
"Quality" things of all stripes tend to have much smaller, more discerning audiences than to "popular" things. This is not to say a popular song cannot also be a quality song (or vice versa), but it is definitely to say that there are plenty of unbearably formulaic "original" songs that have hit Number 1 on "the charts" and could easily be arguably some of the lowest "quality" pieces of music on record (no pun intended). They can be fine examples of regurgitating what's currently fashionable though.
Just because you wrote different words and maybe changed a chord or two - the real difference between a person who uses all the latest and greatest fads and one who simply plays a cover are really not all that different.
Does that make those songs or bands any less entertaining? No.
But again - that has little to nothing to do with the idea that being in an "original" band is better/worse than being in a "cover" band.
must be nice to define whatever does not appeal to a wide audience as being "good" -- then nothing you do sucks?
And by the way, it takes HARD WORK to play in a good cover band. Don't fool yourself on that point. As if only original artists work hard??
And by the way, it takes HARD WORK to play in a good cover band. Don't fool yourself on that point. As if only original artists work hard??
"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes."
-Proverbs 21:2
That's why the measures tZer listed (dollars earned, number of fans, playtime) are the only true measure of what's good: they reflect the opinion of the unbiased.
- Status
